# **Results & Findings** --- #### **Summary of Findings** The SIEU demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability with an overall alpha of .88 for the entire scale. There was some support for the convergent validity of the measure as indicated by the significant correlations between the EBPAS requirements, openness and divergence subscales, and total score and the three SIEU scales. There was strong support for the discriminant validity of the SIEU when examining associations with the subscales and total score for the OSC measures. The survey was able to differentiate the URE self-reported practices of systems leaders, including the *inputs* they attended to, the *processes* and criteria they used to evaluate evidence, and the reasons they engaged with or ignored research evidence, as measured by the *output* measures. #### **Implications for Studying URE** The results of this study demonstrate that the SIEU has the potential to identify patterns of the use of research evidence among different groups of practitioners. It may also enable researchers to better identify and quantify potential predictors of the use of research evidence, thereby contributing to theory development. #### **Caveats and Limitations** There are a number of factors that limit the findings of this study. The sample used in this study included participants of three different studies. Two of the studies involved an examination of the use of a specific RST, while participants in the third study were involved in an examination of statewide practice guidelines for the use of psychotropic medications for youth in foster care. The different contexts in which the studies were conducted may have had an impact on the relevance and utility of the scales. Moreover, while there is considerable debate as to the minimal sample size for an exploratory factor analysis, a larger sample could have produced more representative coefficients with greater stability and would have also enabled us to split the sample in order to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis. Caution must be exercised in evaluating the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure as the reliability for some of the subscales of the EBPAS and the Organizational Context Scales and the OCS global measure was less than desirable (i.e., between .60 and .65). Finally, as a tool for monitoring engagement in EBP, the SIEU can only assess the use of research evidence, and it does not assess the use of evidence from client preferences or clinical experience.